PLoS ONE’s relatively high impact factor may compromise its ability to support PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.
PLoS has an interesting opportunity before it to push its most robust service, PLoS ONE, very aggressively for growth. PLoS can do this by lowering the cost of publishing fees, which would make it increasingly hard for other publishers to match them for a Gold OA service. This could result in PLoS ONE becoming the default OA publishing option for all STM publishing.
Are we witnessing the decline of the open access megajournal and a return to a discipline-based model of publishing?
Are authors leaving PLOS ONE for higher performing journals?
Claims of speed can be used to carve out a competitive edge, especially for journals serving authors. PLoS ONE entered the market claiming fast publication times, but data show that PLoS ONE is slowing down, with times more than doubling over the past few years. Is PLoS ONE losing its speed advantage?
Can PLOS exist without a mega-journal?
Despite a growing anti-Impact Factor movement, a quick look at readership and search query data shows a continued growth of interest in knowing journals’ Impact Factors, even for the journal where it may be the least relevant.
Does the success of the scalable, multidisciplinary open access mega journal signal the imminent demise of the specialized, highly-selective subscription journal?
Publication output for the largest journal in science continues to fall, just not as fast as leading indicators would predict.
Output in PLOS ONE dropped by 6000+ papers in 2016, calling into question the sustainability of PLOS’ business model.
The open access megajournal is a proven success, but its future may lie in the hands of commercial entities.
How a shrinking journals receives an artificial boost to its leading citation indicator.
PeerJ’s first Impact Factor is not expected to surpass 2.000. Without the scale of PLOS ONE, PeerJ may need to seek a larger, diversified buyer. What the journal has to offer other publishers is less clear.